A Humanitarian Success? Alan J. Kuperman, Ph.D. Associate Professor - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

a humanitarian success
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

A Humanitarian Success? Alan J. Kuperman, Ph.D. Associate Professor - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

NATO Intervention in Libya: A Humanitarian Success? Alan J. Kuperman, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Public Affairs LBJ School of Public Affairs University of Texas at Austin Presentation to the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed


slide-1
SLIDE 1

NATO Intervention in Libya: A Humanitarian Success?

Presentation to the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC) Oxford University, UK April 24, 2012

Alan J. Kuperman, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Public Affairs LBJ School of Public Affairs University of Texas at Austin

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Common Narrative: Libya is R2P Success!

  • Initially peaceful, nationwide uprising vs. dictator
  • Qaddafi kills 1000s of peaceful protesters in 3 days
  • Killing spurs armed rebellion in self-defense
  • Security forces launch indiscriminate artillery, aerial

attacks on civilians

  • Qaddafi threatens “bloodbath” in Benghazi
  • UN/NATO intervene to “protect civilians”
  • Nationwide support of rebels enables their victory
  • Conclusion: NATO intervention prevented a

bloodbath and promoted freedom, democracy

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Did Qaddafi Target Peaceful Civilians?

  • Benghazi protesters were armed and violent from first
  • day. Used firearms, petrol bombs, vehicles to capture

army garrison in 3 days

  • Security forces refrained from gunfire until protesters

turned violent. Then, initially shot to wound, not kill

  • Initial death toll < 10% of reported level
  • Security forces very discriminate in Misurata

– 3% of wounded are women (HRW, April 2011) – 257 killed out of 400,000 in 1st two months of war

  • No bloodbaths in recaptured cities
  • In Benghazi, threatened only remaining rebels
slide-4
SLIDE 4

NATO Intervention to Protect Civilians?

  • Targeted retreating security forces
  • Targeted security forces in areas where

civilians supported Qaddafi and thus were not at risk

  • Provided intelligence to rebels, and facilitated

their arming & training

  • Continued bombing despite rebels repeatedly

rejecting cease-fire offers, prolonging war and civilian suffering

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Outcome w/o NATO Intervention?

  • 5-week war
  • 1,000 deaths (estimated):

– Benghazi & east: 400 – Misurata: 200 – Tripoli 200 – Zawiyah 170 – Central Libya 10s

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Outcome w/ NATO Intervention

  • 36-week war (8 months)
  • 8,000 - 30,000 deaths
  • 8,000 (U.S. estimate, Nov 2011)
  • 30,000 (Libya estimate, Sept 2011)
  • 15,000 security forces
  • 15,000 others

–2,000 rebels & civilians in Misurata –1,700 rebels, 100 civilians in Tripoli’s fall

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Post-War Libya

  • Rebel reprisals kill 100s
  • Ethnic cleansing of “black” town of Tawergha
  • Rival militias – including radical Islamists –

fight for control of cities, neighborhoods

  • Oil-rich, eastern Libya threatens secession
  • HRW says former rebels continue “crimes

against humanity” in Misurata (April 2012)

  • 42% of Libyans want strongman like Qaddafi
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Regional Spillover

  • Mali: Weapons from Libya Tuareg rebellion

 IDPs, secession, and coup

  • Syria: NATO intervention for Libyan rebels

Syria’s peaceful protests turn violent  Assad escalates crackdown  Death toll accelerates

  • Somalia: Weapons from Libya rebels

bolstered  Civil war exacerbated?

  • Proliferation: Surface-to-air missiles

(MANPADs) still missing

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Net Humanitarian Impact?

  • War perpetuated: 7X
  • Death toll magnified: 8X – 30X
  • Human rights situation unimproved, at best
  • Economy and governance damaged
  • Mali – civil war contagion and displacement
  • Syria – rebellion encouraged, toll escalates
  • Future benefits to compensate these costs???
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Lessons 1

  • Beware misinformation & disinformation:

–Regional rebellion ≠ democratic uprising –Urban counter-insurgency ≠ targeting civilians

  • Moral Hazard: “Humanitarian” intervention that

benefits rebels may backfire by encouraging escalation in that conflict and others, raising the civilian toll. Can’t be justified on humanitarian grounds, unless state retaliation was grossly disproportionate.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Lessons 2

  • Humanitarian intervention often devolves into

regime change, because interveners won’t cut a deal with the regime that they have

  • demonized. But this magnifies the human

cost, undermining the original rationale.

  • Q: Can one support humanitarian intervention

if one opposes the forcible overthrow of regimes that are not deliberately targeting civilians?